lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (04/29/85)
_ This is a letter concerning the commentary column, "I Yam What I Yam," by David W. Bell '86, of The Harvard Independant of April 18, 1985. This article was so degrading that I was morally obligated to write a response and post it to our local flame group. To reduce the length of this posting, I will replace all the comments I posted in our local flame group with just this: ******** FLAME AT WILL ******** ------------- Near the beginning of his article Mr. Bell describes the following event (here paraphrased to save space): he and a bunch of his friends hire a stripper for his friend's birthday, and a girl in the room throws water in the face of the stripper in anger at the stripper's demeaning actions. > I still could not get myself worked into a moral outrage, especially > in light of the spirit of fun in which the joke was intended. . . . > I believe what best explains my particular moral apathy, and the > phenomena of discrimination in general, is a lack of common identification > between discriminator and discriminated. Here he proceeds to distinguish between racial and sexual discrimina- tion, and to say that while racial discrimination is built on sand -- > A modern consensus also exists against sexual discrimination. But > here the break between the groups is more fundamental. To say "I'll never > understand women," is to repeat a tired cliche. But my reflections on the > dining hall incident [the one with the stripper] give this saying a new and > profound meaning: it i_s_ absolutely impossible for any man to "understand" > women, or to share with them the community possible between members of the > same sex but different race. > > As different as I may be from my white roommates, there is one thing > that we have in common, something I share with every man I ever meet or see > on the street. Obviously, this is that we are all males, implying certain > shared experiences and perceptions. We constitute an extended fraternity, > if you like. > > Such a feeling of fraternity can never be extended to the female of > the species. . . . > And of course, society expects, even demands, that men and women behave > differently. For instance, I don't ever have to worry about make-up or > fingernail polish, or whether to wear a skirt or pants. Society also has > behavioral standards for Blacks. But the male-female social structures > are of a much more implicit nature, tracing their roots ultimately to the > simple physical fact that men tend to be larger than women and therefore > physically dominant. . . . > In this way, sexual conflict is perpetuated and, in a sense, pre- > ordained. And it is this fundamental bifurcation that leads to my lax > sense of morality in cases of sexual discrimination. Coming from a disad- > vantaged minority myself, I can identify with most others who fit this > definition. But I simply cannot fully identify with the problems and > complaints of women. . . . > . . .when physical contact progressed beyond the hand holding stage it > becomes very difficult for the male to continue seeing the female as an "end" > and not "means." The differentiation and objectification of women that I > have spoken of is both fundamental and pervasive. Men, in their own company, > have the ability to demean the status of women to the point at which the > opposite sex becomes little more than at best sub-human androids, or at worst > simple gratifiers. At parties, women take on the role of prize cattle rather > than fellow humans; . . . . . . > Ladies, I am not speaking here only of latter-day "male chauvinists" > left over from the early '70s. Ladies, I am speaking of your otherwise > tender, loving boyfriends and husbands. Otherwise self-righteous liberals, I > am speaking of you. And I am speaking of myself. . . . > Unfortunately, I believe that men are fundamentally incapable of > divining acceptable moral norms for dealing with women through rational > reflection. ------------- Lucius Chiaraviglio '86 { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.UUCP | lucius@tardis.ARPA }
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (04/30/85)
Sigh. So much to flame, so little time: From: lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) > This is a letter concerning the commentary column, "I Yam What I Yam," > by David W. Bell '86, of The Harvard Independant of April 18, 1985. This > article was so degrading that I was morally obligated to write a response > and post it to our local flame group. To reduce the length of this posting, > I will replace all the comments I posted in our local flame group with just > this: > > ******** FLAME AT WILL ******** > > > . . . . . > > And of course, society expects, even demands, that men and women behave > > differently. For instance, I don't ever have to worry about make-up or > > fingernail polish, or whether to wear a skirt or pants. Society also has > > behavioral standards for Blacks. But the male-female social structures > > are of a much more implicit nature, tracing their roots ultimately to the > > simple physical fact that men tend to be larger than women and therefore > > physically dominant. This guy actually thinks that "worry[ing] about make-up or fingernail polish, or whether to wear a skirt or pants" can actually "trac[e] their roots ultimately to the simple physical fact that men tend to be larger than women and therefore physically dominant"?!?!?!?!?!?!?! They *better* be physically dominant - they're clearly *mentally* somewhere below navel lint. (My apologies to all you clear-thinking, decent fellows I just degraded. This is a flame, not a children's textbook.) -- --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)
marr@yale.ARPA (Leon Marr) (05/04/85)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: *** MUNCH, MUNCH *** > This is a letter concerning the commentary column, "I Yam What I Yam," > by David W. Bell '86, of The Harvard Independant of April 18, 1985. This > article was so degrading that I was morally obligated to write a response > and post it to our local flame group. To reduce the length of this posting, > I will replace all the comments I posted in our local flame group with just > this: > > ******** FLAME AT WILL ******** (FLAME: enabled) > > Here he proceeds to distinguish between racial and sexual discrimina- >tion, and to say that while racial discrimination is built on sand -- > Obviously "racial discrimination is built on sand"; to argue otherwise that would imply that Mr. Bell deserves to be discriminated against. >> A modern consensus also exists against sexual discrimination. But >> here the break between the groups is more fundamental. To say "I'll never >> understand women," is to repeat a tired cliche. But my reflections on the >> dining hall incident [the one with the stripper] give this saying a new and >> profound meaning: it i_s_ absolutely impossible for any man to "understand" >> women, or to share with them the community possible between members of the >> same sex but different race. Does Mr. Bell really think "it i_s_ absolutely impossible for any man to 'understand' women, or to share with them the community possible between members of the same sex but different race"? I`d like to see how much "community" he finds possible with your average Afrikaner man in East Cape Province. (Actually, with his views, they might even consider making him "an honourary white" -- they do that occasionally.) >> As different as I may be from my white roommates, there is one thing >> that we have in common, something I share with every man I ever meet or see >> on the street. Obviously, this is that we are all males, implying certain >> shared experiences and perceptions. We constitute an extended fraternity, >> if you like. Or "we are all Shi`ites", or "we are all Socialists", or "we are all Aryans". The SS considered itself an extended fraternity, too. >> And of course, society expects, even demands, that men and women behave >> differently. For instance, I don't ever have to worry about make-up or >> fingernail polish, or whether to wear a skirt or pants. >>>This guy actually thinks that "worry[ing] about make-up or fingernail polish, >>>or whether to wear a skirt or pants" can actually "trac[e] their roots >>>ultimately to the simple physical fact that men tend to be larger than women >>>and therefore physically dominant"?!?!?!?!?!?!?! They *better* be physically >>>dominant - they're clearly *mentally* somewhere below navel lint. Hear, hear, Beth. The example is exceptionally imbecilic. >> Society also has behavioral standards for Blacks. Like having "natural rhythm"? >> But the male-female social structures >> are of a much more implicit nature, tracing their roots ultimately to the >> simple physical fact that men tend to be larger than women and therefore >> physically dominant. What? Does this mean that the larger races (White, Black) should have similar "social structures... ...of a much more implicit nature" over smaller races (Yellow). >> Coming from a disad- >> vantaged minority myself, I can identify with most others who fit this >> definition. But I simply cannot fully identify with the problems and >> complaints of women. I am not surprised. His insensitivity is evident. I am somewhat surprised that he can so sweepingly argue that he can identify with most "disadvantaged minorities". Would he argue Allan Bakke`s side in court? >> Men, in their own company, >> have the ability to demean the status of women to the point at which the >> opposite sex becomes little more than at best sub-human androids, or at worst >> simple gratifiers. Might I point out that though anyone has the ability to demean the status of any subgroup, most people try to avoid such behavior? I could add the usual cracks that Yale students make about Harvard students. It would be another good example of one group "demean[ing] the status of" another. It makes just about as much sense as any other, too. >> At parties, women take on the role of prize cattle rather >> than fellow humans; . . . This is BULLSH*T. I don`t know which parties you go to. I suspect he has been to the wrong ones. I am certainly glad he has not been to any of mine. >> Ladies, I am not speaking here only of latter-day "male chauvinists" >> left over from the early '70s. Ladies, I am speaking of your otherwise >> tender, loving boyfriends and husbands. Otherwise self-righteous liberals, I >> am speaking of you. And I am speaking of myself. Speak for yourself. >> Unfortunately, I believe that men are fundamentally incapable of >> divining acceptable moral norms for dealing with women through rational >> reflection. Rational reflection does not seem to have played a great part in this analysis. > Lucius Chiaraviglio '86 > { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.UUCP | lucius@tardis.ARPA } >>>(My apologies to all you clear-thinking, decent fellows I just degraded. >>> This is a flame, not a children's textbook.) >>>--JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth) >>> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) With this much provocation, I completely understand. If I have offended anyone with my examples, I apologize profusely. The examples are given STRICTLY for the sake of argument. I believe none of them (although since Harvard admitted Mr. Bell, I may begin to believe Yale propaganda :-). Women and men are different. That`s what makes it all so much FUN! I wouldn`t have it any other way. (FLAME: disabled) --Leon Marr '85 decvax!yale-comix!marr P.S. Is it really the "Harvard Independant"? Is that the actual spelling?
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (05/05/85)
> From: marr@yale.ARPA (Leon Marr) >> This is a letter concerning the commentary column, "I Yam What I Yam," >> by David W. Bell '86, of The Harvard Independant of April 18, 1985. >> Men, in their own company, >> have the ability to demean the status of women to the point at which the >> opposite sex becomes little more than at best sub-human androids, or at worst >> simple gratifiers. A friend of mine once told me that the attitude of some Harvard black men towards black women was that they were "a-dime-a-dozen". I didn't believe it until I actually met a Harvard couple for a while who transferred to MIT for a semester. This article doesn't surprise me too much, as it espouses the same attitude this couple did. >> At parties, women take on the role of prize cattle rather >> than fellow humans; . . . I've also seen evidence of this, but not just at Harvard, at most of the parties I went to in the Boston area. This is a problem with black men and women -- they tend to compete with each other, and against each other, for each other. I've seen some good friendships break up over SOs, and seen some good friends of mine get really hurt, and really hurt others. I don't know exactly why this is so -- certainly there is not a lack of black men for black women, and vice versa. (no flames please, about "What about non-black ...", this is not the point I'm trying to address, nor am I trying to avoid it, we covered it a few months ago, remember?) Black men and women seem to be indoctrinated into the Boston area college environment with the need to find the "finest guy" or the "finest girl" or the richest guy/girl. I am glad to say that I did not associate with the people who espoused these attitudes. -- She's on fire, 'cause dancin' takes her higher than anything else she knows! Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpa